Poll: If you could buy Mac OS X for PC, would you still buy a Mac as your next com

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: If you could buy Mac OS X for Intel, would you still buy a Mac as your next computer? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=487)

[Nermal]

That would depend on how well OS X runs on "generic" PCs.

[Lacero]

Probably not. I'll most likely try installing OSX intel onto Quadcore AMD Opterons or whatever it that PC users drool over nowadays. LOL. :D

[MoparShaha]

Well, with the current state of PowerBooks....I'd probably get a PC laptop to run OS X on.

Of course, I earnestly hope these Intel PowerBooks will put those thoughts to rest.

[JeffTL]

When I consider that the main reason I became a Mac user in the first place was how great, hardware-wise, the iBook is, there's not really much of a question. OS X is great and all, clearly the best operating system out there for almost all reasonable purposes, but I'm a geek and can run Linux just fine on a Dell or a white box. Being able to use Linux doesn't change the fact that there is no laptop better than the iBook for $1000 or less.

[Blue Velvet]

That would depend on how well OS X runs on "generic" PCs.

And furthermore, what software I could get to run on it.

Replacing important suites for work wouldn't be easy at this point in time... there are no x86 OSX versions of Creative Suite or QuarkXpress.

A lot of this is just wishful thinking IMHO.

[Kernow]

Definitely - for me, the hardware is all part of the Apple experience. I would have thought too that Apple wouldn't want to become simply a software company, so if they do sell OSX for PC's then the hardware they do sell may become more competitive

[generik]

OSX is great.

But Apple will have to work harder to get *my* hardware sale if I can just buy OSX.. the quality of their recent lines are plain not cutting it.

Currently the only reason people will still put up with these POS computers is because of the OS and the nice design, but if you take the OS away you might see a huge market segment just fall away and disappear.

[ki-goi]

as long as i stay with the mac operating system i stay with apple's hardware. the uptime is great and the no-brainer peripheral support is something people just don't believe until they live with it for a while. apple's hardware is still tied to its software very tightly and that works well. now if i were thinking of switching to linux or something i might ask myself, do i want an apple machine. my geek years are over... sorry linus...

[1macker1]

Depends on the price. If there is still a 200 difference for a lesser spec machine to get the apple hardware, i'd go with the PC, but if there wasn't a difference, i'd stick with Macs.

[prechrchet]

For me it would depend on price and performance. If a souped up HP will run OSX faster for less money, I would be inclined to buy one.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.

[punter]

for a box I'd get a beefed up pc. For a laptop I'd get a powerbook.

The current powerbooks are well behind off the pace performance wise (I own one), but I can only assume the new ones will be right back in the race. They just look and feel SO MUCH BETTER

[nagromme]

Let's assume it's POSSIBLE for Apple to support the infinite chaos of other PC hardware, with the same reliability that they support their own totally-known hardware.

I'd still buy a Mac unless the cost were something like double.

* Because Apple integrates hardware and software TOGETHER as a system--one of their key strengths.

* Because Apple is consistently rated best in reliability and support.

* Because if style matters in my car, my lamps, my clothes, etc., then it certainly matters in my computer too.

* Because Apple often gives us new hardware advances--or makes them standard instead of optional--well before other companies get them. I'm thinking of Firewire, FW800, USB1, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Superdrives, mice, built-in networking, trackpads, lighted keyboards, easy-access internals, etc. etc. - No, Apple's not always first. Just very often!

So I'd buy what was best, but I really doubt anyone would touch Mac hardware.

It's all academic of course :) But dream on :D

[MattG]

I'd still buy a Mac. Part of the reason they work so great is the integration provided by Apple. You're buying the hardware and the software from the same company, and they're custom made to work together. I doubt the integration would be as "tight" if you installed OS X on a PC built from random parts.

[dcv]

Depends on the fate of the 12 inch PowerBook.

If it were to disappear from the line-up... and there were no suitable replacement (e.g. a 13 inch widescreen or whatever) then I'd be tempted to switch back to Sony Vaios again. I wouldn't want a 15 inch notebook.


For desktop computing I would stick with the iMac though.

[2GMario]

im with the laptop argument

if apple provides us with new ibooks and powerbooks that are up to par with intel based ones, sure, id buy apple hardware

recently, due to force, i had to buy a new PC laptop (14 inch widescreen gateway tablet) for school - centrino 1.73ghz - its not oh my god amazingly fast, but it definately puts my ibook 800mhz to shame

gimme the same laptop, 3lb lighter and running os x and you have a sale tomorrow.

on the other hand, given the ability to dual boot windows and os x would sway my decision - regardless if apple allows it, if someone figures out how to do it, on any laptop, that laptop has my attention

school or not, i now use my tablet for work also - needing MS Project and MS Visio which are NOT available for OS X.

-Mario

[tuftywhite]

I'd always buy a Mac first, however, it would be nice to run OSX on an OQO

http://www.oqo.com/

[macFanDave]

I've owned five Macs over the past nine years and had to call Apple twice. Both times they solved the problem over the phone during the course of a single call.

Meanwhile, at work, when there is a problem with the PC's it's always a hassle of the PC vendor trying to pass the buck to Microsoft who tries to pass the buck to some software vendor and on to component makers, etc.

In reality, the tight integration of Apple hardware, OS and software has led to more dependable systems and better support. Of course I'm sticking with them!

[stefman]

I would definitively get Apple hardware. I don't think there's a PC maker out there making the same quality hardware as Apple:D

[Platform]

Apple Hardware, the Design and how the HW work with the software together:D :D :D

[grapes911]

I'd still buy a Mac. Part of the reason they work so great is the integration provided by Apple. You're buying the hardware and the software from the same company, and they're custom made to work together. I doubt the integration would be as "tight" if you installed OS X on a PC built from random parts.
I agree. I think OS X would really go down hill if they had to support all the hardware venders that windows supports. We have 3rd party drivers for everything. Yuk.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Iam a minority here i know but would very much like OSX for a PC. Apple's hardware has become poor in my view for many reasons. Look at iMac for example,every week we here of iMac problems that thing is a lemon, Look at the G5 towers. Apple knew it had problems yet they denied this and only this past week put out a firmware fix for all those G5s. I cant imagine putting up with that crap for 2 years waiting on apple. Look at the Mighty mouse again we hear every day of problems with that poor mouse. The hardware styling is great but the componets dont match up to hardware in the PC world. Then try buying a fast single CPU machine? you cant you have to buy a duallie?? or a non upgradeable iMac. The Software division has saved Apples behind for years in my view. Why shouldnt i be able to run the best software on the best and current hardware? Anyways like steve said they have been running OSX on PCs for years so its coming and PPC will be Apple history! HIP HIP HOORAY!

[SiliconAddict]

Laptop yes. . . Desktop no. From the desktop side of things Apple doesn't have anything overly special when it comes to X86 that I can't custom roll myself and save some serious bank. At most all I would be losing is its design. Oh boo hoo. The thing would be sitting under my desk anyways. RAID, best of class GPU, dual core CPU, boat load of RAM, silent power supplies and one of these virtually silent cases.
Just not worth it.
However I would stick with Apple’s laptop wares. They make laptops that are pretty much the top of the industry. (Well they will be when the dual core x86 models come out.) Realistically I fully expect to be able to take the OS installer DVD from my PowerBook, hack it, and load it on my desktop at some point down the road. Apple can’t stop it from happening. It will occur at some point.
You can call me a bad person. *shrugs* I'm not spending a few extra grand for just an OS when I already have the hardware. That would make OS X to be one of the most expensive OS's in history. (Note: one of. . . I've dealt with IBM. Heheh. They plunder you to a level that makes you wonder if you've just been violated. :eek: )

[SiliconAddict]

Iam a minority here i know but would very much like OSX for a PC. Apple's hardware has become poor in my view for many reasons. Look at iMac for example,every week we here of iMac problems that thing is a lemon, Look at the G5 towers. Apple knew it had problems yet they denied this and only this past week put out a firmware fix for all those G5s.

well some of that can be attributed to heat issues. Both on the G4 and G5. Hopefully with Intel's resources, that doubtlessly Apple has at their full disposal, they can manage any thermal issues which should be less with the Pentium M. Also since they are moving to a more standard platform BIOS or whatever they are going to be using should be well documented. I have hope that this transition is going to stabilize Rev A releases to the point that users aren't going to hold off buying first gen Macs. If it doesn't. Apple's going to be in trouble. they can't keep releasing this half baked hardware. People are going to start talking. "Why is it dell can release [blah] but Apple can't without issues." Etc.

[cubist]

Shuttle, of course. Who needs a computer the size of a small bookcase?

The Mini is too small. Bring back the Cube (but lose the muffler).

[xli_ne]

Laptop yes. . . Desktop no


my thoughts exactly

[puckhead193]

i would definitly run it on a mac. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be.

[adk]

The whole reason I spent Hundreds of dollars more on a powerbook than a comparable windows system was the apple design. Nothing Sticks out, it's all smooth, and the metal design just overall seemed more durable than some piece of plastic. This Powerbook was the First mac i've owned since an LCII and i think i'm hooked for life.

[jefhatfield]

Well, with the current state of PowerBooks....I'd probably get a PC laptop to run OS X on.

Of course, I earnestly hope these Intel PowerBooks will put those thoughts to rest.

which pc laptop then?, dell still beats the pack in most laptop (and desktop) reviews on the pc side and if it were between a dell and ibook/powerbook, i would go with the apple made machines

i don't mind spending a little more and getting the more durable and better designed apple computers

if i had to go with a pc company, then i could opt for a sony and if money was no object then i would go with alienware ... but i am a clutz so maybe a panasonic toughbook would be safe :)

[mynameisjesse]

i cant believe all you people are saying that its apples hardware youre most intrested in. to be honest, their hardware isnt that great at all..most just looks pretty. i would say their only impressive computer is the powermac, and the rest are over priced for no reason. the ONLY reason you like macs(unless you really have to get a good looking computer) is for their operating system. i love my imac, but for the money i spent on this thing i could have got an amazing dual core pc. so if i was able to get os x on a generic pc, i would do it in a heart beat.

oh and before you rip on dells, you should probably own one first. every single dell i have ever bought still runs. one is 10 years old and still runs how it did the day i bought it. i have heard/seen more problems with the new apple computers than any other computer company. i love apple, but im not going to lie or be blind about the facts.

[efoto]

Regardless of compatibility, Apple certainly has the aesthetic edge when it comes to computers and devices. I would most certainly purchase a Mac once again even if OS X was available for installation on any x86 machine, especially since Mac systems will be moving to x86 procs which should close whatever performance gaps people argue over currently.

PC laptops are a joke to look at and use. They house great power and performance, but they still look like the Tonka-trucks of personal computing. The towers aren't all that bad, but they still pale in comparison to the beauty of a PowerMac.

[mynameisjesse]

PC laptops are a joke to look at and use. They house great power and performance, but they still look like the Tonka-trucks of personal computing. The towers aren't all that bad, but they still pale in comparison to the beauty of a PowerMac.

who the hell cares what it looks like? seriously...you pay extra money for a better looking computer, not because the hardware is better, but because they had to pay designers to make it look "cool". id rather have that money spent on making it perform better and last longer.

[plinden]

I would buy an Apple for any new purchase, but run OS X on my older PCs.

[efoto]

who the hell cares what it looks like? seriously...you pay extra money for a better looking computer, not because the hardware is better, but because they had to pay designers to make it look "cool". id rather have that money spent on making it perform better and last longer.

A lot of people buy Mac computers, especially portables, because they look better and similar performance (arguably) to many PC counterparts. I take it your house is very plain, your car the base model, etc etc, since you don't care about styling at all, or at least don't want to spend extra for it.

Sales of high-line cars, fancy homes, well designed cases/bags/computers/whatever are all proof that style is important to a lot of people, myself included. I purchased a PowerBook because I wanted to try out Mac after years of being away from it and because they beat the pants off of pc counterparts in size/style. You can disagree with me about paying for style, but I'm obviously not alone.

[finchna]

Assuming that peripherals still work the same way I'd buy Apple because peripherals just work. Perhaps that's a software thing rather than a hardware thing, but hardware seems to work better and easier with Apple than with Dell or IBM.

[mynameisjesse]

A lot of people buy Mac computers, especially portables, because they look better and similar performance (arguably) to many PC counterparts. I take it your house is very plain, your car the base model, etc etc, since you don't care about styling at all, or at least don't want to spend extra for it.

im heavily into style. i have a nice car, fancy room, clothes i like, but i just dont think a computer should be about looks. you get a computer for 1 simple reason and looks really have nothing to do with it.

[MrCommunistGen]

i'd build myself a PC for less than whatever the going price is on a retail PC computer, and certainly buckets less than whatever apple will sell the Intel Macs for... but of course this will never happen so why bother? (sorry I'm in a real cynical mood right now) :(

-mcg

[Manatee]

I'd most likely buy a Powerbook anyway, unless it miraculously occurred to one of the many PC makers that style and packaging count.

It just stuns me that any PC notebook I buy has all kinds of bumps and bulges on the bottom and sides, regulatory stickers all over the bottom, and they can't put an optical drive in anything less than 1.5" thick.

Apple seems to take more interest in designing a polished product for their customers. Afterall, it's the same Asian manufacturers actually producing the products, so the other brands could obviously sell just as slick a product. It's not like the parts don't exist.

[efoto]

im heavily into style. i have a nice car, fancy room, clothes i like, but i just dont think a computer should be about looks. you get a computer for 1 simple reason and looks really have nothing to do with it.

I guess we are at a fork in the road then, because I would still disagree. I know quite a few people who steer towards the nicer looking equipment (be it audio/video home entertainment stuff, televisions, etc) simply because they will blend into their setting better (black vs. silver/white) or because they prefer the shape/styling. That may mean they are sacrificing performance to attain their desired style, but a lot of people do that. You do not with computers, and that's fine, but a lot of other people do, simple as that.

When my company does photo shoots for products we use Mac computers exclusively. I asked our prop lady why we only use Macs (since they are never on, just a visual icon) and she said that she would never allow PC laptops/desktops/screens to be displayed because they lack any sort of styling or design touches. Apple has built an iconic aura around (nearly) their entire product base. It's a tough job, but once accomplished, it lends itself to making your company/product the default when 'style' is needed.

[wrldwzrd89]

I would still buy a Mac, no matter what happens with Mac OS X. I don't have any compelling reason to buy a generic Windows PC - besides, Mac OS X is not going to have driver support for most of the x86 hardware out there.

[zelmo]

im heavily into style. i have a nice car, fancy room, clothes i like, but i just dont think a computer should be about looks. you get a computer for 1 simple reason and looks really have nothing to do with it.

Take your last sentence and replace the word 'computer' with the word 'car': "you get a car for 1 simple reason and looks really have nothing to do with it." I know lots of people feel that way, too. ;)

As long as the InteliMac computers are on a level field, performance-wise, with PC offerings, I'll happily pay a premium for Apple style and hw/sw integration, particularly as I can't imagine ever buying anything but laptops in the future.
Of course, I'll also happily hook up a nice 24" Dell LCD to my laptop, instead of paying for an ACD. :)

[peharri]

I love Thinkpads. It's that simple. I have a PowerBook, and I miss the way the Thinkpad worked that I used before that, especially the three-button mouse (nipple) - just not the GNU/Linux distribution I ran on it.

People have different tastes and needs, and it's just not possible for Apple to cater to all of them. Mac OS X is something Apple makes that I want. But their laptops aren't really.

[efoto]

I love Thinkpads. It's that simple. I have a PowerBook, and I miss the way the Thinkpad worked that I used before that, especially the three-button mouse (nipple) - just not the GNU/Linux distribution I ran on it.

People have different tastes and needs, and it's just not possible for Apple to cater to all of them. Mac OS X is something Apple makes that I want. But their laptops aren't really.

You just wanted to write 'nipple' didn't you? ;)

I think ThinkPads are the best portable PC offering to date. Every time I have seen one it has been in decent shape (due to build quality) and the performance always seems above the competition (although I don't fully understand this point because I thought they all used the same basic equipment with different shells/sw :confused: )

[kwajo.com]

I agree, thinkpads are excellent, and are probably the only laptop I would consider other than Apple's offerings. as for desktops, I realize it is irrational, but I love my G5 more than any other computer and I would hate to risk buying another computer I might not like as much. then again, money talks

[bousozoku]

I still want to have a machine that is unrivaled in its integration with its operating system. While I find lower prices compelling, I'm also compelled to run away as soon as a lot of things go awry, as they do in the Windows world.

When I switched from an IBM laptop computer to a Mac back in 1993, I made this observation: "I went from spending 99 % of my time fixing the machine to run certain applications, not all of which would run under the same circumstances. Now, I spend 99 % of my time running the applications."

Apple, or a properly-licensed clone maker, can have my money as long as the machine isn't a total waste of money.

[Sunrunner]

Let's assume it's POSSIBLE for Apple to support the infinite chaos of other PC hardware, with the same reliability that they support their own totally-known hardware.

I'd still buy a Mac unless the cost were something like double.

* Because Apple integrates hardware and software TOGETHER as a system--one of their key strengths.

* Because Apple is consistently rated best in reliability and support.

* Because if style matters in my car, my lamps, my clothes, etc., then it certainly matters in my computer too.

* Because Apple often gives us new hardware advances--or makes them standard instead of optional--well before other companies get them. I'm thinking of Firewire, FW800, USB1, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Superdrives, mice, built-in networking, trackpads, lighted keyboards, easy-access internals, etc. etc. - No, Apple's not always first. Just very often!

So I'd buy what was best, but I really doubt anyone would touch Mac hardware.

It's all academic of course :) But dream on :D



I agree with your points completely. If there is one thing the quality of the user experience on a Mac has taught everyone, its that these points (which you mentioned) are the key to a truly smooth computing environment. Reliability and ease of use go a long way to make for any small slowdown in procesor speed if you ask me. After all, whats a 5 second faster render time if you just spent 2 hours trying to get your (insert something here) to work...

[thequicksilver]

No, I'd get a cheap PC to run as a desktop backup/OS X media centre. It'd also give me the Windows possibilities I need every so often. I'd keep my Mac notebook and keep it as my number one computer, but for a second computer choice I could replace my ageing self-built Athlon with a £400 or so Dell.

It's a no-brainer for my specific needs.

[efoto]

No, I'd get a cheap PC to run as a desktop backup/OS X media centre. It'd also give me the Windows possibilities I need every so often. I'd keep my Mac notebook and keep it as my number one computer, but for a second computer choice I could replace my ageing self-built Athlon with a £400 or so Dell.

It's a no-brainer for my specific needs.

I wouldn't buy an Xserve either if I just needed a media center/storage solution. You can't really build a Mac like you can a pc, so if all you need is a storage/mc/backup to a Mac then a pc makes the most sense hands down.

My plan would be to have a Mac laptop (currently), a Mac workstation (coming soon I hope), and a pc filestore/server. Instead of burning DVDs I could have multiple drives in a redundant raid setup on the pc since all the parts are cheap and drives are costing next to nothing these days. I could easily through 1TB or more in there for next to nothing in comparison to what I would pay to get that out of Apple. Obviously they are meant/marketed for different things so that is an unfair comparison, but point made.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

As some of the people who posted before me, I'd definitely buy Apple portable. I am yet to see a laptop that gives me the same warm, fuzzy feeling inside as my Powerbook. As for desktops, I'm not sure. Probably I'd by Apple branded desktop, but just because the force of habit. Quite a few of my friends have PCs assembled by me and I love tinkering with hardware, but at the end of the day I want to go grab a shiny aluminum box, go home, plug it in, and just enjoy it. So, since I'll be paying premium anyway, why not give it to Apple.

[mynameisjesse]

well i dont use laptops, i really only buy desktop computers which could be why i dont care how they look. i guess that with a laptop it matters more considering youd want a thin body with a nice shape. with a desktop you can hide the tower and just get a nice monitor to make it fancy.

i agree that if os x could run on any x86 system i would build my own.

[zap2]

Way so many people hating the Apple Desktop? Apple desktop are much better then Laptops, power and speed wise. (by more power i know laptops are normal less powerfull btu the G4 is well not the best chip!(unless we got a dual-core one!)

The G4 is almost 6 years old!

[velocityg4]

I'd use it on a PC just because I love to custom build my own computers. It's fun for me to get all the seperate hardware and assemble it to make your own custom rig. And saving hundreds of dollars is definately a plus. Even most of the Apple's I've owned have been upgraded with CPU accelerators, video cards, RAM etc. Some of the macs were even assembled from all the parts.

As for a portable it would probably be a powerbook. Unless some PC maker has a better weight, performance, battery life and price ratio. I could care less about looks since I don't really care for the modern designs.

I think Mac's looked the best in the early 90's like the IIvx, IIfx, Quadra 900 and IIsi. For powerbooks I'd say the G3's. Come on Steve give me a Beige mac again with the Original Apple logo.

[ausurfer]

As some of the people who posted before me, I'd definitely buy Apple portable. I am yet to see a laptop that gives me the same warm, fuzzy feeling inside as my Powerbook. As for desktops, I'm not sure. Probably I'd by Apple branded desktop, but just because the force of habit. Quite a few of my friends have PCs assembled by me and I love tinkering with hardware, but at the end of the day I want to go grab a shiny aluminum box, go home, plug it in, and just enjoy it. So, since I'll be paying premium anyway, why not give it to Apple.

I agree totally with you. I picked up my first Mac about this time last year, and will use it first wherever possible, rather than getting on the DELL. There is so much of a gap between the 2 platforms. It's definitely worth paying a little extra for the Mac.

[After G]

I'd still buy from Apple. The cost of building my own computer, plus an OS license, would probably be the same price I'd pay for an Intel Mac anyway. Plus I get decent hardware that looks hot, (even if it isn't cutting edge.) The PC world seriously needs designers like the ones at Apple imho.

[generik]

I will just gladly get the OS and run it on a offbrand PC.. just look at the hardware forums.

Apple computers are even lower quality than self assembled OEMs from what I can see :mad:

[steelfist]

no for me. one, because intel for mac will start to have games that can play equally well as pcs,

imagine all these gaming developers having to develop programs from recoding for both the intel-ppc cpu, and recoding for the operating system

to only having the operating system migration. i suspect high gaming performance from these intel macs.

from 50 to 20 fps from a comparable pc to a mac with the same specs (lets leave the cpu comparison out) we might have a 50 -45 fps gaming difference between two computers with around the same specs.

now, because of this I want to stay using macs even more. now, what does this have to do with this poll? it's simple. i want apple hardware because it's made for the operating system, and what's the difference between the two computers's motherboard and technical specs anyway? is there something that apple's hardware that pcs have? certinally not. it's the other way around and i'm going to still stay with apple hardware + apple OSX.

an intel + apple hardware won't be much difference than a pc with intel and other stuff. because of this, you won't get any performance boosts or benefits from a pc, other than maybe a slight price difference.

apple won't release 3.6 ghz intel pentium 4 cpus for their powermacs. i think that they might release a quad-cpu pentium D fast cpu set. you know, 2 dual core cpus running together. and apple usually uses the fastest cpus that the cpu company can make for their produce, so therefore the powermacs won't be any slower than some $3000 alienware gaming machine.

[wordmunger]

If I can run Windows on the next generation of Macs, then it's a no-brainer. I'd rather have a Mac that can run Windows than a generic computer that can run Mac OS X.

Plus, I'm a laptop guy, and as many have said before me, Mac laptops are much better than PCs.

[alexstein]

I would still buy a Mac as my next computer, design and quality of a product are huge factors for me.

There is no doubt that apple has the nicest hardware on the market. The portable line is in need of serious power increase and I hope this will come with the new intel machines.

[efoto]

I would still buy a Mac as my next computer, design and quality of a product are huge factors for me.

There is no doubt that apple has the nicest hardware on the market. The portable line is in need of serious power increase and I hope this will come with the new intel machines.

Part of the problem with 'serious power increases' is that to maintain our currently loved case design (form factor, sleek lines, etc) we cannot add a ton of 'extra' hardware. Take a look at the highest performing notebooks offered from pc makers....they are huge in both thickness and depth.

Personally I would rather have a sleek form factor with slightly 'decreased' performance (relative currently with OS being run) than a fast number-cruncher that causes hernias. This is a major reason why we don't have a G5 PowerBook right now, it would have to be 3" thick!

[habiton]

OS X and apple hardware work together in harmony. Whats one without the other? If your a true Apple believer, you will buy hardware as well, why wouldnt you? Just look at it, its a work of art! For those looking for a powerful laptop, yes the G4 is lacking, that is why Intel is coming along so to say you would still buy a pc laptop is nonsense because of its speed

[efoto]

OS X and apple hardware work together in harmony. Whats one without the other? If your a true Apple believer, you will buy hardware as well, why wouldnt you? Just look at it, its a work of art! For those looking for a powerful laptop, yes the G4 is lacking, that is why Intel is coming along so to say you would still buy a pc laptop is nonsense because of its speed

I'm just hoping that Apple continues to use specific hardware in their computers. I can't imagine supporting the vast array of pc hardware out there, so I hope they select what they think is the best of the best and support that. If they make OS X available to general computers that's fine, but I don't want to deal with driver issues like XP. Every ****ing product has unique drivers and it's a pain in the ass. I hope Apple doesn't stray away from it's simplicity of hardware.

Some could argue that we have a lack of choices, but I would argue that Apple selects the best products on the market and offers those. This equates to the user be offered a select hardware set but it is top-qualtiy, top-performance, and 'guaranteed' to work right. I love that, I hope it stays.

[iDM]

Well i have been a little disappointed by the upgrades of recent Powerbooks and so forth, but I'm hoping that these intel upgrades are really powerful processors. Although OS X is what has truly made me adore my Apple, the stlye, look, packaging and casing of my Powerbook, families iMac, Cinema Displays...blah blah blah....bottom line depending on the ability of the new Apples to have comparable processor speeds then I would stick with Apples, I am a little disppointed about the high prices but I guess that's what I'm paying for. I had a friend buy a top of the line Dell around the same time I got this, and his screen has developed a thick yellow line at all times, the keyboard didn't register certain keystrokes, and now his power supply will not work so therefore his computer had died and he can't use it till he sends his computer to Dell for servicing. I know Apple have problems as well but I mean his comp frankly just looks like a POS in addition to being a POS. My computer is over 2 years old(!!!) and the thing looks like the day I got it in the mail! Only it has a brand new monitor that Apple replaced for free a couple months ago.

Bottom line pending any vast price increases/dramatic margins between the PC offerings (Running OSX of course) of hardware, I would still buy an Apple.

[Apple]

Of course I'd stick with Apple

Once you go mac you never go back

But really. i think that there is no comparison to the actual mac hardware. Instead of opening up a big fat oval I can open up the perfectly, symmetrical ibook.

[shamino]

I wouldn't buy an Xserve either if I just needed a media center/storage solution. You can't really build a Mac like you can a pc, so if all you need is a storage/mc/backup to a Mac then a pc makes the most sense hands down.
Not necessarily so.

When you start talking about large amounts of storage (multiple TB), an Xserve with the Xserve RAID chassis ends up costing a lot less than comparable storage systems from other vendors. An Apple system with 2TB of storage can be had for under $10,000. A similar system based on Windows (from Dell or HP) or UNIX (from Sun or Network Appliance) costs a lot more ($30-50K).

Remember that a file server is a lot more than a workstation with a large hard drive.

[shamino]

I'd probably build a system myself.

While Apple's industrial design is lightyears ahead of Dell and HP, there are a ton of great-looking cases you can get if you choose to build your own system - some of which I prefer to Apple's G5 towers.

Building PC's has been a hobby of mine for many years. I buy Mac hardware now because I have to in order to run OS X. But if I could get a really nice case, install a high-end dual-Opteron board from Tyan or Asus, etc., and run OS X on it, I'd jump at the chance.

[mjstew33]

I would probably get some box and build it myself and put a legal copy of OS X on there. Hmm... I don't see that happening...EVER.

[shamino]

I would probably get some box and build it myself and put a legal copy of OS X on there. Hmm... I don't see that happening...EVER.
I think this poll is assuming that a legal copy can be purchased, and that stable device drivers for the hardware are available.

I will not try and install a hacked copy of OS X on unsupported hardware, nor will I use it without stable driver support for my hardware.

I don't have any moral problem with doing this (as long as the OS package is legally purchased), but I no longer have the desire to deal with the inevitable problems that will result. Back in the 90's, I spent ridiculous amounts of my free time using OS/2 on a home-built PC. Due to a lack of driver support and overt hostility from some hardware and software vendors, I found the experience to often be more effort than it's worth.

I would not want to go through that nonsense again with OS X. Without official support from Apple and hardware vendors, I would be in the same situation.

To quote Lethal Weapon, "I'm getting too old for this s***."

[ReanimationLP]

I'd buy a Powerbook.

But for the desktop? I'd buy it and then build a dualcore AMD machine.

[ReanimationLP]

Way so many people hating the Apple Desktop? Apple desktop are much better then Laptops, power and speed wise. (by more power i know laptops are normal less powerfull btu the G4 is well not the best chip!(unless we got a dual-core one!)

The G4 is almost 6 years old!

Actually, also, when you think about it, the Pentium M is 7. Since at its heart beats the almighty Pentium III design.

[matticus008]

Apple computers are even lower quality than self assembled OEMs from what I can see :mad:

Not really. It's just that you're at an online forum where you're naturally going to see more complaints than praises. If anything, Macrumors has an inflated number of positive posts relative to most other online communities.

If you want to see phenomenal hardware failure rates, you should look at CPU manufacturers. They might only get 35% working processors in a batch (but generally catch most of them, and then OEMs like Dell or Apple catch most of the rest, leaving customers with relatively few dead CPUs).

Apple also suffers from lower volume, so 100 broken PowerMacs is going to make a much louder stir than 100 broken Dell Dimensions.

[efoto]

Not necessarily so.

When you start talking about large amounts of storage (multiple TB), an Xserve with the Xserve RAID chassis ends up costing a lot less than comparable storage systems from other vendors. An Apple system with 2TB of storage can be had for under $10,000. A similar system based on Windows (from Dell or HP) or UNIX (from Sun or Network Appliance) costs a lot more ($30-50K).

Remember that a file server is a lot more than a workstation with a large hard drive.

A true file server may be more than a workstation with a ton of storage space, but a 'home' file server is just that, at least to me and those I know. I know a few people who have two or three systems built with over 1TB each. Granted this is not one machine that holds all that space, but each system doesn't cost much to build, much less than $10k for all three I imagine. The drives end up being the most expensive part, and even those aren't that bad.

[Eniregnat]

I would always shoot to have an Apple built laptop before I chose another manufacturer- but that's given Apple's quality today. Down the line, though, if other companies offered as machines that are as reliable as my Apple's, I would think about it. Especially if the competitors offered better features- i.e. hot swappable batteries, ruggedized, etc...

[slooksterPSV]

Once a Mac always a Mac

[2nyRiggz]

theres nothing like a mac computer...always the top.

Bless

[amacgenius]

No way, the OS is great, but it's the hardware under it (in this case a PC). I'd buy a Mac, besides, they come with OS X.

[NerdBoy]

I'd still get a Power Mac, since apple usually gets some revolutionary processor tech first (not in the Dual-core case, though). Remember, apple was the first to get 32 and 64 bit, so it probably will get quad core(on one chip :D ) or 128 bit first. also, no other PC can run a 30" display, right?

[NerdBoy]

I'd be really tempted to get an Alienware ALX though.... Those look awesome!!

[amacgenius]

I'd still get a Power Mac, since apple usually gets some revolutionary processor tech first (not in the Dual-core case, though). Remember, apple was the first to get 32 and 64 bit, so it probably will get quad core(on one chip :D ) or 128 bit first. also, no other PC can run a 30" display, right?

AMEN! you hit the nail on the head!

[shamino]

A true file server may be more than a workstation with a ton of storage space, but a 'home' file server is just that, at least to me and those I know. I know a few people who have two or three systems built with over 1TB each. Granted this is not one machine that holds all that space, but each system doesn't cost much to build, much less than $10k for all three I imagine. The drives end up being the most expensive part, and even those aren't that bad.
Only if you plan on never making backups. A good backup solution for 1TB will cost thousands of dollars. (Or you'll spend weeks swapping DVDs).

Without a backup solution, your cheap server system will simply result in terabytes of lost data when parts start failing.

[freiheit]

In all fairness I must say that I would not "buy a PC" to run OSX, I would "build a PC" to run OSX. And I would most certainly be looking for an AMD processor to power it. But yeah, I'd love to be able to run OSX on a "generic PC" even if it meant choosing only from a small selection of supported components.

[efoto]

Only if you plan on never making backups. A good backup solution for 1TB will cost thousands of dollars. (Or you'll spend weeks swapping DVDs).

Without a backup solution, your cheap server system will simply result in terabytes of lost data when parts start failing.

Valid. I never really thought of that. Like I said, my cheap 'file server' is just that, cheap :p I rarely think far enough ahead to figure out things like that.

[cc bcc]

OS X and apple hardware work together in harmony. Whats one without the other? If your a true Apple believer, you will buy hardware as well, why wouldnt you?

Apple believer? WTF...

[thegreathobo]

I would still buy a Mac because MAC os x is designed to run on a MAC. :) It just works. A pc would explode or something or create an error so that I couldn't work on it. Liek the BIOS would randomly melt or it would complain of nuclear radiation. Maybe itd choke on a pretzel. mac > pc

[ebuc]

As others have said, Mac OS X is designed to run on Apple hardware. Quiet running and the general very good build quality will always be better than a competitive PC. Even if they are closely priced, its worth going for the Apple computer just, because, its Apple.

[maestro55]

Yes, I would still get an Apple computer. The Apple hardware looks nice, and there is a sense of pride when using an Apple computer. I am still not sure how I feel about Intelmacs.

[Josh]

The title of the poll is:

"If you could buy Mac OS X for PC, would you still buy a Mac..."

Which implies OS X is released for ALL pc's, which would mean the "OS X is designed for Apple Hardware" arguement would then be bogus.

So, since this is hypothetical, and that OS X would run just as well, I'd build my own.

Faster...cheaper...and much more custom(izable) than what Apple offers.

[iEdd]

To me, hardware is what does it. I wouldn't use a pc as a main computer, OSX or not. If I wanted osx on some pc, I would've hacked one illegally.
Although the designed for mac thing would go, I'd say apple would give mac users the phone support and a few other bonuses they wouldn't give to people buying it for peecees.

[Chef Medeski]

If this is based on the current line of computers. Hands down I would buy a nice Sony or IBM and put OS X on it.

And unless iPod either makes a blow my ass out of water computer system(highly doubt) or it makes something with a very useful feature to me (namely second screen and easily repalceble abtteries like current one) well consider my buisness lost. My Powerbook is nice, but thats because I got a $800 disount otherwise, I would be hell-a-pissed at the quality.

[shamino]

If this is based on the current line of computers. Hands down I would buy a nice Sony or IBM and put OS X on it.
You've obviously never owned a Sony Vaio system. Although they have nice industrial design and a good price/performance ratio, their support is terrible. And they charge an arm and a leg for proprietary replacement parts once your warrantee expires.

IBM used to be a very good brand (albeit with unremarkable industrial design), but since they sold the PC division to Lenovo, I would hesitate to recommend them. In a year or two, when we can find out how their quality and support policies are, maybe I'll recommend them again.

Unfortuntely, there really are no good mainstream PC vendors left in the market. All of the traditional big names have serious problems with quality control and support. There are smaller companies like Alienware and Averatec that seem to be bucking that trend, but it's hard to convince someone to buy from a company they've never heard of before.
And unless iPod either makes a ...
The name of the company is Apple, not iPod.

When a PC user calls me for support and calls every single program on his hard drive "Microsoft", it's usually a clear sign that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I don't know anything about you, but if you want to be taken seriously, you really should make a point of getting obvious facts (like the name of the Mac's manufacturer) correct.

[Megatron]

Definitely, and assuming that the new intel powerbooks can run with the windows laptops, the thing that will differentiate them is style. And apple has always been better at that.

[Truffy]

Having built PCs in the past, I'd probably have a go at installing OSX on a homebrew.

[Truffy]

When a PC user calls me for support and calls every single program on his hard drive "Microsoft", it's usually a clear sign that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Indeed. I just bite my tongue when my wife refers to Photoshop Elements on her computer as "my Adobe". ;)

[speedemonV12]

Just had a few questions....first off i love mac...but right now i am runnin windows xp pro on a dell inspiron 600m, and its 3 years old. Its time to get a new computer. Mac has held my eye for a long time now, and i really want to get one......but what i would like to know first, is what will happen once they switch to intel chips? will that make it so that i would run OSX on an PC? since its intel based?.....also....does anyone know if, or when they will begin to use the new intel chip (nyhon or something) after it comes out in January....and i guess the last question would be....When will they come out with a new powerbook......the g4 has been out for a while, and g5 just seems like the next step? do you know if they will comeout with that soon? and wiill the g5 have intel, chips in them?....im looking to get something by christmas, but if Apple is planing on releasing some nice new comps begining of 06, then i might wait. Please let me know...thanks

[Meyvn]

Despite complaints of Apple's hardware being inferior (in desktops, this is bull anyway), they make the best computers they can with the PPC technology that is available and practical to use. When they're released into the x86 world, it will doubtless be no different. Apple holds themselves to a different level of excellence in its hardware than other companies do. You simply can't get the same quality without custom building your computers. The reason most PC comapnies are so inexpensive by comparison isn't simply because of style. They use far less expensive components in general. And when they don't (note some of Toshiba, Sony, and especially Dell's high end laptops--up to 4 grand), they're as expensive or moreso than Apple. I don't want OS X to be released to the general public, because if it does, every cheap, mass-manufacturing PC company will put it on some of their 300 dollar machines, and Apple will cease to be a hardware business. It is in my best interest for Apple's hardware business to stay open, because I enjoy both their design and their standard of component quality in their computers. I don't want to go back to building my own boxes, because they will simply never be as seemlessly integrated with each other, nor will they ever look anything close in design to Apple's offerings.

[wrldwzrd89]

Just had a few questions....first off i love mac...but right now i am runnin windows xp pro on a dell inspiron 600m, and its 3 years old. Its time to get a new computer. Mac has held my eye for a long time now, and i really want to get one......but what i would like to know first, is what will happen once they switch to intel chips? will that make it so that i would run OSX on an PC? since its intel based?.....also....does anyone know if, or when they will begin to use the new intel chip (nyhon or something) after it comes out in January....and i guess the last question would be....When will they come out with a new powerbook......the g4 has been out for a while, and g5 just seems like the next step? do you know if they will comeout with that soon? and wiill the g5 have intel, chips in them?....im looking to get something by christmas, but if Apple is planing on releasing some nice new comps begining of 06, then i might wait. Please let me know...thanks
Regarding Mac OS X on a Windows PC, that will not work because Apple is trying their best to hardware-lock Mac OS X to Apple Macs.

I have no idea what Apple's plans are for which Intel chips to use when. What I do know is that the laptops and consumer Macs will get Intel chips first. I'd expect the Mac lines to go Intel in this order: Mac mini, iBook, PowerBook, iMac, PowerMac, eMac. Oh, and they won't be called G5 anymore since that's PowerPC-specific.

[shamino]

...but what i would like to know first, is what will happen once they switch to intel chips? will that make it so that i would run OSX on an PC? since its intel based?
Apple is designing Mac OS so it won't work on PC's. You might be able to hack it to make it work, but nobody knows if that will actually work. Even if it does, Apple won't support PC hardware, and system updates may make it fail.

If you want to run Mac OS, you will have to buy Mac hardware.
.....also....does anyone know if, or when they will begin to use the new intel chip (nyhon or something) after it comes out in January....
Apple and Intel have said nothing about what chip the Intel Macs will use. There is a lot of speculation and rumors indicating the "Yonah" chip, but we won't know for sure until after the computers start shipping.
and i guess the last question would be....When will they come out with a new powerbook......the g4 has been out for a while, and g5 just seems like the next step? do you know if they will comeout with that soon? and wiill the g5 have intel, chips in them?
"G5" is a series of PowerPC chips - specifically those based on IBM's PowerPC 970 series.

It is very very unlikely that Apple will release a PowerBook with a G5 chip. There will eventually be an Intel-based PowerBook, but I doubt anybody will be calling this a "G5".
....im looking to get something by christmas, but if Apple is planing on releasing some nice new comps begining of 06, then i might wait. Please let me know...thanks
If you don't need to buy something immediately, I'd wait until the MacWorld conference in January. Apple often announces new products then, and people are expecting new Macs. If none of the new announcements interest you, wait a few weeks longer (since there are often announcements shortly after MacWorld) and then buy what you think will best suit your needs.

If you need/want something now, however, don't hesitate to buy a Mac today. Today's models are great computers and will continue to be very useful, even if something better will be announced in the near future.

[plinden]

Definitely, and assuming that the new intel powerbooks can run with the windows laptops, the thing that will differentiate them is style. And apple has always been better at that.
Sorry, can't be bothered reading all the posts in this thread, so I may be repeating some things.

I'm thinking that the thing that would differentiate Mac hardware is that the motherboard would be Mac-specific, so you would still get things like Openfiirmware rather than BIOS, and ability to boot from an external firewire HD. I doubt that just any PC hardware could do that.

[wrldwzrd89]

Sorry, can't be bothered reading all the posts in this thread, so I may be repeating some things.

I'm thinking that the thing that would differentiate Mac hardware is that the motherboard would be Mac-specific, so you would still get things like Openfiirmware rather than BIOS, and ability to boot from an external firewire HD. I doubt that just any PC hardware could do that.
Actually, Apple said that they would not use OpenFirmware in Intel-based Macs (I can't find the link, unfortunately). I suspect Apple is going to use Intel's EFI instead of a standard PC BIOS.

[shamino]

Actually, Apple said that they would not use OpenFirmware in Intel-based Macs (I can't find the link, unfortunately). I suspect Apple is going to use Intel's EFI instead of a standard PC BIOS.
The only thing I heard about this was a Developer Note back from when the Intel boxes first started shipping. It simply told developers to not expect the shipping systems to be the same as the test systems WRT ROM code, disk partitioning, or Gestalt information. (Unfortunately, I can't seem to find my reference either.)

Nothing more specific than this has come out of Apple. Any more specific claim will be just rumor.

[dernhelm]

Yup. No question. I've owned IBM laptops, Dell laptops, and Toshiba laptops. None of them hold a candle hardware-wise to my current powerbook.

Nobody does industrial design like Apple. Heck - I'd by my next windows laptop from them, even if I had no intention of installing OS/X on it!

[dernhelm]

I'd be really tempted to get an Alienware ALX though.... Those look awesome!!

ugh. To each their own I suppose... :D

Actually Alienware does have some nice systems, but you really pay a premium for their "post processing" and that is something I can't really stomach. If their were doing their own design, I'd be more impressed.

[generik]

Yup. No question. I've owned IBM laptops, Dell laptops, and Toshiba laptops. None of them hold a candle hardware-wise to my current powerbook.

Nobody does industrial design like Apple. Heck - I'd by my next windows laptop from them, even if I had no intention of installing OS/X on it!

You keep yapping about this "Industrial Design" as if it means anything. I will gladly take a Thinkpad that can survive having a jeep go over it, and NOT have horizontal lines on its screen, thank you.

[iggyboy2]

I have a sawtooth now and am pressed for space with a baby coming. Don't want a laptop, and a mini is just basically an ibook w/o the screen, so if I could get a much smaller form factor pc that ran OS X well and had room to add MUCH CHEAPER pci cards (better video, etc.) then yes I would buy it.

[slooksterPSV]

ugh. To each their own I suppose... :D

Actually Alienware does have some nice systems, but you really pay a premium for their "post processing" and that is something I can't really stomach. If their were doing their own design, I'd be more impressed.
If Apple partnered with Alienware I think they would have some of the most powerful computers, three of the most reputable companies (Apple, Alienware, Intel) providing the performance for them. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

*The new Alienware OSX5500 includes:
Intel Pentium D 755 clocked at 3.2GHz per core with 2MB L2 Cache Per-Core
500GB SATA2 HDD
4GB DDR2 700MHz SDRAM
ATI X2000 512MB PCI-eXpress 16x Video Card capable of Multiple GPU options with DVI, UDI, HDI capabilities for resolutions up to 5120x3840 at 64-bit colors (I know 32-bit is the only capability we have)
Mac OS X Leopard - The worlds most advanced operating system in the world.
3 PCI-eXpress 8x Lanes
2 PCI-eXpress 4x Lanes
For a total of 48 Lanes of through-put.
Windows whatever the worlds most unsecure OS in the world.
* - I know some of these items don't exist like the ATI X2000 PCI-eXpress card, nor is Leopard out, UDI is still being worked on.

[Jo-Kun]

I'd always buy a Mac first, however, it would be nice to run OSX on an OQO

http://www.oqo.com/

this would be my choice if it ran OSX and cost the same as a similar iBook... would be a nice companion to have next to my camera when working on location... but for 1999 USD I wouldn't buy it and go with a maxed out 12" iBook to do the trick...


it just all depends on what hardware the intel transition will bring and how it will work compared to other PC's (if OSX would run on them) for my desktop system it's all about stability and perfomance... mobile solutions just need to be small for me... the powerstuff happens at home ;)

+ the looks do matter allso a bit, since my G5 looks so nice on my desk
but performance will be the biggest issue overall...

[p0intblank]

I just couldn't imagine installing OS X on a PC and feeling okay with it. I enjoy the design of the computers themselves too... not only the operating system. I'm on a PowerBook right now and I have never useed a notebook as nice and well-built as this one. That's what I love about Apple: great computer design AND great operating system. You can't get that from anyone else.

[kretzy]

Come on Steve give me a Beige mac again with the Original Apple logo.

Please NO! :eek:

I think I would continue purchasing Mac hardware because of it's reliability, integration with the OS, generally up to date technology (current PBs the exception), lack of problems (although much of this could be attributed to Windows I suppose) and their excellent style and design.

Many people have said that how your computer looks doesn't matter, but for me this is completely untrue. I'm on my computer many hours a day, and as geeky and sad as this sounds, it is an important part of my life. I would much prefer paying a little bit extra for something that not only does it's job but makes the experience more enjoyable. And this includes the the feel of the computer, not just the appearance. Why should I type on a crappy, clunky, plastic keyboard when I can use the divine PB KB?

[liquidh2o]

in a heartbeat. You won't get the reliability from a PC that you would from an Apple machine that is specifically supported by OSX.

[Apple X]

last year i buyed a PC to replace my PowerPC 6x00/200 or something like that because apple was to expensive
(i have assembled my Pentium 4 HT3000, Asus motherboard for around €500)
Now I see aaple to is moving to intel, and i'm sure it's the best thing they ever did
Most of the hardware of apple is still genius, but they are seeling there hardware for too expensive, and the G5 is too hot
Sow maybe i will install Mac OS X on my PC if i feel it would make my life easier because i don't know if i still need it, my sister has a powerbook but sometime she use my computer for internet, because there are websites that need activeX or else..

[slooksterPSV]

Please NO! :eek:
...

Yeah I agree, I'll cry if they go back to beige. Apple is design not just blah blah blah. Otherwise why not instead of OS X we go to Windows 3.11? No more beige for the love of Apple. I can stand the white crystal-like color that the iBook, Mac-Mini, iMac, iPod, etc. is, but not beige, no way, no how, no, no no no no.

[mrfuser]

We'd be more inclined to pick the ability to run affordable, complete, diverse PC software on a reliable piece of hardware (MAC) without the speed limitations associated with Virtual PC. The MAC OS is great, but truly excellent software is way out of our price range, especially when it comes to audio editing/restoration & photo editing/restoration.

All in all, a very "class exclusive" approach to marketing. I know of one college where the courses are geared to PC gear because very few of their students can afford a MAC. Is it any wonder that this translates to Windows based gear in the workplace? PowerBook, MAC desktops, IPODS, etc. -- you'd better be at the upper-middle to upper income level or be willing to join the financially overextended rest of America. No wonder the interest rates for Apple Credit are so high. There should be a category for "repo" gear; might already be a significant percentage of what is listed as refurbished/returned...

[maya]

I have to have my fashionable Macintosh. :D

[iGav]

Yep... though I did find that Jiggie or Jiggle... (that NY based AMD guy's attitude slightly infectious) :) if the Intel version of OS X can run on AMD's without any major stability issues, I'd be tempted to have a crack at building my own for motion work if they give a performance boost over whatever Intel's Apple employ in the Power Mac's.

Though I'd build it in a G5 case for it cooling capabilities. heh ;)

[Mike Teezie]

As long as Apple makes hardware, I'll buy it.